penpot_delete_shapes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description successfully discloses key behaviors: shape removal, cascading delete for frames/groups, and irreversibility. This goes beyond what the input schema conveys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. Critical details (cascading delete, no undo) are included without extra verbiage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a delete tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and important caveats. It is slightly lacking in parameter specifics but otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, yet the description adds minimal parameter info beyond 'by id'. It does not explain fileId, pageId, or shapeIds beyond the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (delete), the resource (shapes from a page in a Penpot file), and method (by id). It also distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is the only deletion tool, contrasting with clone, find, etc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when to use (to remove shapes) and warns about no undo and cascading deletion of children. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.